Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
117 This chapter considers three broad elements of the mobility management framework introduced in Chapter 4: provision of multiple travel options for metropolitan area residents, assurance of quality services by multiple modes, and transit-supportive land use development. These elements are each discussed in turn with an emphasis on identifying points of leverage to advance consumer choices for more sustainable and equitable travel than by single-occupancy vehicles (SOVs). The discussion focuses on the influence that cities, their surrounding jurisdictions, and transit agencies can have in exercising mobility management at the local and regional scales and the institutional complexities of doing so given the decentralized governance of metropolitan areas in the United States. The three main sections of this chapter review the elements identified above. Each section includes a table that provides an outline for, and over- view of, its content. The first column of each table identifies the capabili- ties being sought, the second column lists policy strategies to achieve those capabilities, and the third column identifies the entities with responsibility for elements of the strategies. The text describes (1) the various policy strategies that local jurisdictions can employ; (2) evidence of effectiveness when available; (3) the policy issues raised; and (4) the variety of agencies and jurisdictions that are, or would need to be, involved in implementing them. The multiplicity of identified entities that have authority over some elements of policy, particularly when considered at the regional scale, high- lights the need for the agencies and jurisdictions to develop shared goals and collaborate on strategies for achieving them. In addition to describing mobility management as it might be applied by local governments or transit 5 Mobility Management, Part 2: Transportation Supply and Management
118 THE ROLE OF TRANSIT, SHARED MODES, AND PUBLIC POLICY agencies, this chapter also identifies the range of institutional challenges in managing mobility at the regional scale. A. PROVISION OF MULTIPLE TRIP OPTIONS Given that automobile, transit, and shared mode options are already avail- able across most metropolitan areas, this section examines what more cities, transit agencies, and other entities can do to provide multi-modal options for their residents. A traditional U.S. policy response to meeting public de- mand for goods and services across many policy domains is to foster ways for supply to meet demand, supporting competition to encourage efficiency and fair pricing when private companies are the service providers, and limiting negative side effects, or externalities, with other strategies. With regard to urban transportation and the disruptive effects on incumbent services of ridehailing and other shared modes, policy makers have had to balance the benefits these services provide while attempting to minimize their social costs. For ridehailing, and for some versions of micromobility, private compa- nies exploited seams in regulations to meet demand without public-sector involvement or permission or simply began offering their services in places where no regulation had existed and even, in some cases, where it was illegal for them to operate (sometimes garnering cease-and-desist orders). As described later, in the case of ridehailing, states and local governments ultimately established a regulatory structure after Uber and Lyft began flood- ing urban markets with drivers seeking riders. Where states took action, however, the result was an asymmetric competition between ridehailing and taxis that, with a few notable exceptions, left cities and their surrounding jurisdictions with little influence over ridehailing entry or operations. In the case of micromobility, however, states have played a limited role. Local jurisdictions retain their regulatory power, though the very small scale of micromobility to date has lowered the stakes compared with ridehail- ing. Some localities are experimenting with how to ensure micromobility supply while limiting negative side effects. Many transit agencies have actively sought partnerships with ridehailing and micromobility providers, as described in Chapter 2. Some jurisdictions, however, have followed a laissez-faire approach of allowing entry of ridehailing and micromobility providers without restriction. This approach allows demand to be met, but it leaves these jurisdictions with little leverage or access to trip information to help them manage externalities or pursue policy objectives such as equi- table access to these new services. The structure and focus of this section are outlined in Table 5-1. The first subsection to follow describes policy leverage that local jurisdictions have over micromobility and ridehailing and how they can exercise it to
TRANSPORTATION SUPPLY AND MANAGEMENT 119 TABLE 5-1 Provision of Multi-Modal Options for Customers Capabilities Implementation Strategies Responsible Entities 1. Expanded shared mobility options Effective permitting and regulatory structure for micromobility to ensure equitable supply and to limit negative side effects. Usually cities, but can be counties, or other local or regional transportation authorities depending on state law and policy. Strategies to encourage supply and competition to drive efficient pricing of ridehailing and taxis. Most states have enabling legislation that pre-empts what localities can require regarding ridehailing supply. Local taxi commissions, however, have considerable influence over the structure of the taxi industry. Strategies for serving targeted populations, including subsidies, permitting, and regulatory requirements to reach low-income areas and serve travelers with disabilities. Local jurisdictions for micromobility and ridehailing subsidies to achieve public goals. Transit agency partnerships with shared mode providers to expand paratransit and replace withdrawn fixed- route services. Local, state, and federal funding to pay for subsidies. Usually local jurisdictions for requirements for geographic coverage or subsidies for serving low- income areas. For service to travelers with disabilities in the form of wheelchair accessible vehicles, local governments, taxi regulators, transit agencies. 2. Expanding accessibility to transit New and expanded service. Transit agencies provide supply, based on local, state, and federal sources for funding. Network redesign to reduce walking distance to bus lines from employment and population concentrations. Transit agencies in concert with cities and other affected local jurisdictions. 3. Road and sidewalk space allocation Provision of bus and bike lanes. Cities and other local jurisdictions within a region. 4. Reduced emissions from ridehail vehicles Requirements and incentives for alternative fuels/ electrification. States with some participation by local jurisdictions in supporting recharging infrastructure. continued
120 THE ROLE OF TRANSIT, SHARED MODES, AND PUBLIC POLICY Capabilities Implementation Strategies Responsible Entities 5. Safety and personal security Regulations for operators, vehicle standards; infrastructure provision and design. Federal, state, and local laws and regulatory agencies. 6. Automation of shared ride/taxi and transit services Pilot testing. Local/state jurisdictions to establish ground rules for pilot testing. Federal regulations regarding driverless vehicles and funding of demonstrations of automated technologies and standards for connected vehicles/infrastructure. TABLE 5-1 Continued foster shared mobility. The second takes up strategies to expand access to transit. The third addresses strategies to ensure that road space is allocated to all modes to enhance the quality and safety of transportation supply responses. The fourth discusses strategies to achieve policy goals to reduce emissions caused by ridehail vehicles, and the fifth discusses safety policies and regulations to address the risks of ridehailing and micromobility. The sixth provides a brief overview about how automation of ridehail, taxi, and transit operations could transform the mobility landscape in future decades. The concluding subsection provides an overview of the multiple involved entities and the roles they play. A.1. Expanded Shared Mobility Options Local governments and local and state transportation agencies and authori- ties have a variety of avenues for expanding travel options for consumers while avoiding negative side effects of doing so. Effective permitting for bikesharing and scootersharing allows and sets ground rules for the opera- tions of these travel options. Encouraging competition and leveling the competitive playing field for ridehailing and taxis expands options, encour- ages efficiency, and minimizes the risk of monopoly practices. Subsidies, permitting, and regulatory strategies expand services to customers who would not otherwise be adequately served by private markets, including low-income residents and travelers with disabilities. Effective Permitting and Regulatory Structure for Micromobility In the case of docked bikesharing, as described in Chapters 1 and 2, major cities began to expand the availability of this option by providing space for
TRANSPORTATION SUPPLY AND MANAGEMENT 121 docking stations, establishing and expanding bike lanes, and, in most cases, subsidizing operations. For dockless operations of e-bikes and e-scooters, some cities are allowing multiple operators, providing parking corrals near transit stations, and requiring or incentivizing providers to place vehicles in such locations, but they have generally not subsidized these services. This approach to dockless services both facilitates first/last mile connections to transit and manages the problem of vehicles parked in inappropriate spaces and blocking sidewalks. Some cities have been deliberate in expanding micromobility supply by starting small, conducting pilots, evaluating results, and then finally expanding service by allowing more providers and vehicles while also refining regulations and enforcement to limit negative side effects. This approach is by no means uniform across micromobility services, as many cities with dockless bike services lack regulations and many that do have regulations nonetheless have vague policies.1 Many cities raced to keep up with dockless e-scooters after they were introduced, while others adopted a laissez-faire approach.2 National organizations have offered regulatory guidance to cities that could lead to more robust and consistent policies across the country.3 In this evolving context of private entrepreneurship and public-sector regulation, there is an open question about whether dockless operator registration fees, additional fees applied on vehicles, limits to areas of op- eration, and other regulation of dockless vehicles are overly constraining supply generally.4 There are also counterarguments that allowing open en- try results in too much supply and not enough opportunity for operators to be profitable, particularly in less dense cities and in suburbs.5 As with other shared modes, the e-scooter industry appeared to be struggling in early 2020, with many companies laying off staff and pulling their operations 1 Wood, J., and S. Hamidi. 2019. Lessons on the Evolution of Dockless Bikeshare Policy in American Cities. Center for Transportation, Equity, Decisions and Dollars, The University of Texas at Arlington. https://ctedd.uta.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/WoodHamidi_2019_ CTEDD_RegulatingTheRide.pdf. 2 Griffee, J., et al. 2020. Scooting into a New Era: A Review of Agency Regulations on Shared EÂScooter Programs. Working paper, School of Landscape Architecture and Planning, University of Arizona. 3 NACTO (National Association of City Transportation Officials). 2019. Guidelines for Regulating Shared Micromobility, Version 2. https://nacto.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/ NACTO_Shared_Micromobility_Guidelines_Web.pdf. See also Transportation for America. n.d. Shared Micromobility Playbook. https://playbook.t4america.org. 4 Deighton-Smith, R., et al. 2019. Regulating AppÂBased Mobility Services. International Transport Forum. https://www.itf-oecd.org/regulating-app-based-mobility-services. 5 Zipper, D. 2020. The Local Regulations That Can Kill E-Scooters. CityLab, February 10. https://www.citylab.com/perspective/2020/02/electric-scooter-market-city-regulations-fees- suburbs/606256.
122 THE ROLE OF TRANSIT, SHARED MODES, AND PUBLIC POLICY out of some markets well before the novel coronavirus outbreak in the United States.6 Policies affecting micromobility supply are within the province of local jurisdictions and worthy of evaluation to assist other agencies struggling to manage such services in the public interest. Such information, along with experience gleaned and shared from pilot projects facilitating micro mobility for first/last mile connections to transit, can inform and shape future poli- cies and programs of transit agencies and the jurisdictions they support. Assessments of pilot e-scooter programs in the United States illustrate how cities can set goals for equitable access to micromobility and use data pro- vided by vendors to assess the success in achieving their goals. Strategies to Encourage Supply and Competition in Ridehail Markets In most states, ridehailing suppliers serve market demand in accordance with the requirements of state ridehail-enabling legislation that gives local jurisdictions limited leverage over whether, where, and how much ride- hail service is provided.7 In contrast, a few states, such as New York and Washington, provide local jurisdictions with considerable discretion. Examples include New York Cityâs ability to place caps on the numbers of drivers in order to minimize congestion caused by overconcentration in peak demand areas and in peak periods. In many cases, however, public authorities have been reluctant or slow to respond to the expansion of ridehailing due to uncertainty about their benefits and costs and how to regulate them effectively.8 Following the rapid expansion of ridehailing after 2012, multiple firms have entered and exited the market. Even though Uber and Lyft have gained the largest market presence in the United States, there has been little evidence so far of these large firms exercising market power in pricing. Mergers among ridehail companies that raise concerns about monopoly power, if they were proposed, would be addressed at the federal level. The viability of multiple ridehail companies following the 2020 pandemic and expected slow economic recovery will bear close watching in this regard. 6 Bliss, L. 2020. 4 Predictions for the E-Scooter Industry. CityLab, January 27. https://www. citylab.com/transportation/2020/01/electric-scooter-industry-safety-design- micromobility/605179. 7 Washington State Joint Transportation Committee. 2019. Regulation of TransportaÂ tion Network Companies: Policy Guide. http://leg.wa.gov/JTC/Documents/Final%20Studies/ TNC_PolicyGuideFinal.pdf. 8 Pike, S., and R. Gruner. 2020. Ridehailing, Uncertainty, and Sustainable Transportation: How Transportation Stakeholders Are Responding to the Unknowns Surrounding Ridehailing. National Center for Sustainable Transportation, University of California, Davis. https://ncst.ucdavis.edu/ research-product/ridehailing-uncertainty-and-sustainable-transportation-how-transportation.
TRANSPORTATION SUPPLY AND MANAGEMENT 123 A significant side effect of allowing companies such as Uber and Lyft to operate has been to reduce the profitability of taxi companies and indi- vidual taxi operators, who tend to be independent contractors rather than employees. Local jurisdictions exercise considerable influence in terms of taxi fare and service offerings. A good argument can be made that inflexible and protective regulation of the taxi industry over many years has inhibited the innovativeness of this industry.9,10 Certainly, most economists believe that allowing Uber and Lyft to compete on a level playing field with taxis would raise consumer welfare, assuming that (1) ridehailingâs flexibilities in pricing and service and safety and (2) state insurance requirements would also apply to the taxi industry.11 Ridehailing has cut into the taxi market considerably,12 which has had the indirect, adverse effect of reducing both the number of (1) taxi drivers who are willing and trained to offer wheel- chair accessible vehicles (WAVs) and (2) providers still accepting cash pay- ments, which is important for users lacking credit cards. Local jurisdictions could revise taxi regulations in ways meant to allow this industry to compete more effectively with ridehailing companies.13,14,15 Allowing all of these for-hire vehicles to compete on a more equal footing by, for example, allowing taxis to vary their fares with demand as ridehail- ing companies are able to do would both discipline prices and help ensure the equity benefits taxis provide. However, equalizing ridehailâtaxi compe- tition is neither simple nor straightforward due to the asymmetry between the business models of ridehail companies and taxis. For example, and as described later, ridehail apps have several in-built personal security features that taxi street hails do not (at least until use of taxi-hailing apps becomes more widespread). As an example of the complexity of expanding taxi supply, lifting entry controls on taxis could exacerbate the congestion problems taxis cause in cities and at airports with large street-hail and taxi stand markets.16 In such settings, drivers tend to oversaturate high-demand locations and underserve other areas. Entry control and pricing flexibility for taxis would not gener- ate the same kinds of congestion problems in dispatch service (the same 9 Cetin, T., and E. Deakin. 2019. Regulation of Taxis and the Rise of Ridesharing. Transport Policy 76. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0967070X17300409. 10 Schaller, B. 2016. Unfinished Business: A Blueprint for Uber, Lyft and Taxi Regulation. http://www.schallerconsult.com/rideservices/blueprint.htm. 11 IGM Forum. 2014. Taxi Competition. http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/taxi- competition. 12 Schaller, B. 2018. The New Automobility: Lyft, Uber and the Future of American Cities, Figure 1. http://www.schallerconsult.com/rideservices/automobility.htm. 13 Deighton-Smith et al. 2019. 14 Cetin and Deakin. 2019. 15 Schaller. 2016. 16 This paragraph relies heavily on Schaller. 2016, pp. 6â8.
124 THE ROLE OF TRANSIT, SHARED MODES, AND PUBLIC POLICY type of service ridehailing companies provide, albeit through an app rather than a human dispatcher). Since taxi drivers can typically serve both street- hail and dispatch markets, however, nuanced regulatory approaches are required that are suited to the market demands of individual jurisdictions. Some cities have attempted to address the congestion problems caused by both ridehail and taxis by placing caps on taxi and ridehail drivers, but these do not address the other personal vehicles that make up the vast majority of trips and cause most congestion. Options to manage traffic congestion more generally are addressed in the second major section of this chapter. Expanding Services to Targeted Populations Subsidies Provision of subsidies, either to operators or users, is another way for the public sector to enhance supply. As described in Chapter 2, cities and transit agencies are using a variety of subsidies to promote bikeshar- ing and improve the mobility of targeted populations. Docked bikeshare operations are generally owned and subsidized by cities or transit agencies while being operated by private or non-profit organizations under contract. Dockless bikesharing and e-scooter sharing operations are generally not subsidized directly. For ridehailing, several examples are described in Chap- ter 2 of providing subsidies to improve the mobility of paratransit-eligible populations. Described below are subsidies to taxi or ridehail companies to ensure the provision of WAVs. In principle, similar subsidy strategies could be employed to enhance micromobility and ridehailing services for economically disadvantaged neighborhoods for equity reasons, as described next, or to encourage drivers of personal vehicles to shift to transit for envi ronmental or congestion reasons. Tradeoffs, of course, are necessary to effectively allocate available funds for subsidies. For example, the review of microtransit in Chapter 2 describes the provision of subsidies in pilot tests to provide first/last mile connections to fixed-route transit networks. In all these cases, key questions are how effectively they are serving social goals and at what costâquestions which ongoing pilot studies should help answer. Permitting Some cities impose equity obligations on bikeshare and shared e-scooters, such as requirements for payment options for users lacking bank accounts or smartcards, provision of service to low-income areas, and discounts for low-income residents.17 Scholars have proposed frameworks 17 For e-scooters, see Griffee et al. 2020. See also Janssen, C., et al. 2020. City-to-City and Temporal Assessment of Peer City Scooter Policy. Transportation Research Record 2674(7). https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0361198120921848.
TRANSPORTATION SUPPLY AND MANAGEMENT 125 for evaluating the equitable access of bikes through docked bikeshare programs,18,19 but formal evaluations to date are lacking. Although some cities have equity requirements in dockless bikeshare regulations and city ordinances, as of 2018, many had none.20 Regulating wheelchair accessible vehicle service Before the rapid expansion of ridehailing, many cities and taxi regulators tried to ensure that WAVs were available for those who needed them by requiring taxi companies to provide minimum levels of WAV service, by subsidizing this service through surcharges on all taxi trips, or by offering incentives to companies to pro- vide such services. These measures, however, have had limited success.21 Having vehicles does not equal having service because of the greater time involved with reaching customer pick-up locations and boarding and dis- embarking passengers. Even when the number of WAVs reaches targets set by regulators, response times to patrons are slow and many requests are not served at all.22 These problematic levels of service are further reduced because the taxi industry has diminished in size in response to expansion of ridehailing.23 Wheelchair accessible service can also be challenging for transit agen- cies to provide. To meet the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), public transportation agencies have served wheelchair users at least in part through their paratransit services, which, in turn, have contracted with taxi companies and other specialized service providers to operate WAVs. These services typically require making trip reservations at least 24 hours in advance and often longer. The transit agencyâs cost of such services can involve a subsidy of $25 per trip or more, which, combined with limited funding, constrains service availability. Ridehailing companies could potentially offer WAVs at a lower cost than traditional providers but they have generally resisted requirements to provide WAVs or, even where they have wheelchair vehicles in their fleets, complying with other provisions of the ADA. The companies contend that 18 Qian, X., and D. Niemeier. 2019. High Impact Prioritization of Bikeshare to Improve Disadvantaged Communitiesâ Access to Jobs and Essential Services. Journal of Transport Geography 76. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0966692318305374. 19 Chen, Z., et al. 2019. Exploring the Equity of Bike-Sharing Systems with Disaggregated Data: A Story of Southern Tampa. Transportation Research Part A 130. https://www. sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0965856419302903. 20 Wood and Hamidi. 2019. 21 NASEM (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine). 2015. Between Public and Private Mobility: Examining the Rise of TechnologyÂEnabled Transportation SerÂ vices. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC, pp. 46â47. http://www.trb.org/Main/ Blurbs/173511.aspx. 22 Schaller. 2016, p. 13. 23 NASEM. 2015, p. 136.
126 THE ROLE OF TRANSIT, SHARED MODES, AND PUBLIC POLICY they offer platforms to independent driver-contractors, whom the compa- nies cannot guarantee will meet ADA level-of-service requirements.24 These claims are being tested in court at the time of this writing.25 Meanwhile, companies such as Uber and Lyft are expanding WAV services, perhaps in reaction to lawsuits, but availability remains limited compared to their non-specialized offerings.26 Local jurisdictions and states are testing out a range of other strategies to expand WAV accessibility.27 A common strategy is to place surcharges on all taxi and ridehail trips to help subsidize WAVs, but taxi surcharges can be a regressive tax given the proportion of low-income riders that depend on taxis.28 More promising for expanding the availability of WAVs are strategies that are designed to identify and support companies commit- ted to WAV service, provision of appropriate general-fund subsidies, and aggregating trips subsidized by different agencies through a centralized dispatching service.29 A.2. Expanding Accessibility to Transit New and Expanded Service Many, if not most, transit agencies struggle year after year to sustain ad- equate funding, but service was expanding geographically in several cities prior to the pandemic. As noted by the American Public Transportation Association (APTA), âFrom 2000 to the end of 2017, 52 new systems and 124 extensions (both rail and busway) opened, resulting in a total of 1,393 additional segment miles.â30 This expansion includes 50 more rail systems than 30 years ago31 and new and expanded rail and Bus Rapid Transit ser- vice in cities as diverse as Albuquerque, Denver, Detroit, Eugene, Houston, 24 Gonzales, E., et al. 2019. Optimizing ADA Paratransit Operation with Taxis and Ride Share Companies. Massachusetts Department of Transportation. https://www.mass.gov/files/ documents/2019/07/17/ADA_Paratransit_Operations2019.pdf. 25 Westervelt, E. 2019. RideÂHailing Revolution Leaves Some People with Disabilities Behind. National Public Radio. https://www.npr.org/2019/08/21/753034337/ride-hailing- revolution-leaves-some-people-with-disabilities-behind. 26 Morris, J. 2019. 17 Cities with Wheelchair Accessible Uber or Lyft. November 20. https:// wheelchairtravel.org/cities-wheelchair-accessible-uber-lyft. 27 Shared-Use Mobility Center. 2020. Case Study: Examples of Mobility on Demand Policies and PublicÂPrivate Partnerships to Increase Accessibility. https://learn.sharedusemobilitycenter. org/casestudy/mod-and-accessibility-policies-and-programs-2020. 28 NASEM. 2015, pp. 135â136. 29 Schaller. 2016, p. 14. 30 APTA. 2019. Transit Fact Book 2019, p. 8. https://www.apta.com/wp-content/uploads/ APTA_Fact-Book-2019_FINAL.pdf. 31 APTA. 2019, Figure 3.
TRANSPORTATION SUPPLY AND MANAGEMENT 127 New York City, San Francisco, and Vancouver.32 Overall transit vehicle rev- enue miles of service and revenue hours operated increased steadily through 2017.33 The share of transit vehicles and stations that are ADA accessible also continues to grow.34 Total funding for transit grew steadily over the past 20 years before level ing off with the recent decline in ridership.35 Local and state funding for capital expenses increased through 2017, while federal support de- clined.36 Even before the pandemic, overall operating funds through 2017 appeared to be declining slightly due to the plateauing of farebox revenues and a decline in state funds. This occurred even as local funds increased slightly, and federal funding, though quite modest, remained steady.37 Fund- ing, always an issue for public transportation, would likely be a constraint on additional service expansion, especially for agencies where ridership is declining. Network Redesign For those networks largely in place, transitâs overall appeal to travelers can be improved through increased frequency of service and expanded hours of service (described in the next main section as a quality of service capability). This paragraph focuses on redesign of bus networks to improve accessibility to transit, which is defined in this context as bringing more routes and service within walking distance of residential and commercial develop- ment. Several transit agencies have been redesigning their bus networks in response to changes in development since networks were established years ago,38 as well as to respond to declining ridership and to accommodate new light-rail lines.39 Some of these changes involve shifting from a radial bus network designed to bring residents into the urban core to more of a grid network that facilitates both trips across the city and feeder service to other transit modes. These revised routes often include increased service fre- quency on high-volume bus routes and other service changes. Redesigning bus networks to better align with current development and travel patterns 32 APTA. 2019, Figure 4. 33 APTA. 2019, Figure 11. 34 APTA. 2019, p. 3 and Figure 20. 35 APTA. 2019, Figure 23. 36 APTA. 2019, Figure 26. 37 APTA. 2019, Figure 27. 38 Vock, D. 2017. Buses, Yes Buses, Are the Hottest Things in Transit. Governing. https:// www.governing.com/topics/transportation-infrastructure/gov-big-city-bus-systems.html. 39 Byala, L., et al. 2019. Comprehensive Bus Network Redesigns. TCRP Synthesis 140. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, Washington, DC. http://www. trb.org/Main/Blurbs/179215.aspx.
128 THE ROLE OF TRANSIT, SHARED MODES, AND PUBLIC POLICY to increase the share of the population within walking distance of transit has strong intuitive appeal. The results of implemented redesigns to date, however, have not yet been studied in detail and their long-term benefits and costs not yet established.40 A.3. Road and Sidewalk Space Allocation Sharply increasing use of micromobility resulted in recent, and expanded, guidance for cities regarding permitting for micromobility parking and operations.41 Providing micromobility parking in urban cores can be chal- lenging due to limited sidewalk space and political tradeoffs in adding bicycle/e-scooter parking spaces, racks, and parking corrals or in taking away automobile parking spaces for micromobility parking. With con- strained public space, it is challenging to add parking on sidewalks without impeding access by wheelchair users and pedestrians with disabilities. Both the safety and consumer appeal of bike and scooter operations can be enhanced by the provision of bike lanes, particularly bike lanes that are physically separated from traffic lanes, and by design elements for intersec- tions to reduce conflicts with motor vehicle turning movements.42 Analytic techniques can help cities evaluate bike lane designs and choices of streets for bike lanes, but the traffic impacts and costs of adding protected bike lanes in congested city centers have to be considered and tradeoffs evalu- ated.43 Despite controversy and opposition, large cities such as Denver, Minneapolis, New York, San Francisco, and Seattle have removed through automobile traffic from key downtown streets and replaced automobile lanes with dedicated bus and bike lanes.44 This reallocation of public space may be accelerated or decelerated by the 2020 pandemic, but, as of the writing of this report, it is too soon to know with certainty. Long-run effects of these reallocations of road space for transit and shared modes are not yet 40 Byala et al. 2019, p. 77. 41 Shaheen, S., and A. Cohen. 2019. Shared Micromobility Policy Toolkit: Docked and Dockless Bike and Scooter Sharing. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/00k897b5. See also NACTO. 2019; Transportation for America. n.d. 42 NACTO. n.d. Urban Bikeway Design Guide. https://nacto.org/publication/urban- bikeway-design-guide/dont-give-up-at-the-intersection. Note that, aside from the benefits of separated bike lanes, the safety of various designs to enhance cycling, both for bike lanes and at intersections, is not well established and is an active area of research and evaluation. 43 Zou, T., and W. Wei. 2019. Bikeway Prioritization to Increase Bicycle Network Con- nectivity and Bicycle-Transit Connection: A Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis Approach. Transportation Research Part A 129. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/ S096585641831156X?via%3Dihub. 44 Lin, R.-G. 2020. San Francisco Bans Most Cars from Market Street. Will Other California Cities Follow? Los Angeles Times, February 12. https://www.latimes.com/ california/ story/2020-02-12/san-francisco-ban-private-cars-market-street.
TRANSPORTATION SUPPLY AND MANAGEMENT 129 available, and their short-run effects are highly influenced by the decline in commute travel during the pandemic. In congested cities, adding bike lanes by narrowing traffic lanes and marking bike lanes with paint involves less congestion cost to motorists and capital cost to cities than providing fully separated bike lanes, but provides less safety for cyclists than separated lanes and also reduces the ap- peal of cycling and potential for mode shift.45 Challenges notwithstanding, some cities are taking leadership roles by adding lanes for use by cyclists and e-scooter riders. A.4. Reduced Emissions from Ridehail Vehicles The rapid growth in ridehailing has increased automotive emissions in congested urban cores as described in Chapter 2. Many urban states follow the lead of California in setting vehicle emissions policies, and the state is ahead of others in addressing ridehail emissions. Californiaâs state legisla- ture enacted the Clean Miles Standard in 2018, adding to its set of policies and regulations that promote alternative fuels and zero emission vehicles (ZEVs).46 Pursuant to this law, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) will propose regulations by 2021 requiring ridehailing companies to meet greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction targets beginning in 2023. It is expected that to meet these targets ridehailing companies will rely on ZEVs (electric or hydrogen powered), increased pooling of ridehail trips, and facilitation of first/last mile connections to transit. Recent analysis has shown that (1) existing ridehail electric vehicle (EV) service patterns are similar to those of non-EV ridehail vehicles, in part because of Californiaâs available recharging infrastructure, and (2) growing electrification of the California ridehail fleet would substantially reduce ridehail GHG emissions.47 As with the issue of the ridehail contribution to congestion, placing EV requirements on ridehail companies has posed the question of whether ridehail companies, whose drivers own a small share of the overall vehicle fleet, should be targeted for special requirements to reduce emissions when the vast majority of emissions are coming from other personal vehicles and trucks. Although California has aggressive targets for vehicle emis- sion reductions, its ZEV mandate currently only requires manufacturers to 45 Watkins, K., et al. 2020. Bicyclist Facility Preferences and Effects on Increasing Bicyclist Trips. NCHRP Research Report 941. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medi- cine, Washington, DC. https://www.nap.edu/catalog/25792. 46 California Air Resources Board. 2020. Clean Miles Standard. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/ our-work/programs/clean-miles-standard/about. 47 Jenn, A. 2019a. Emissions Benefits of Electric Vehicles in Uber and Lyft Services. National Center for Sustainable Transportation, University of California, Davis. https:// escholarship. org/content/qt15s1h1kn/qt15s1h1kn.pdf?t=pyn867.
130 THE ROLE OF TRANSIT, SHARED MODES, AND PUBLIC POLICY produce an increasing percentage of ZEVs over time;48 it does not require vehicle owners to purchase them. Even so, in September 2019 Uber com- mitted to expanding its fleet of EVs49 and in June 2020, Lyft committed to a 100 percent all electric fleet by 2030.50 CARB has committed to minimiz- ing adverse impacts on ridehail drivers, many of whom would struggle to afford EVs.51 A.5. Safety More than a century of managing motor vehicle crashes and casualties has evolved into a complex and multi-faceted set of safety measures imposed by all levels of government and across private industry. Along with safety measures to reduce the risk of crashes and associated injuries, public poli- cies for commercial passenger transportation have evolved over time to pro- tect passengers from assaults by operators and to protect operators from assaults and robberies by passengers. These safety and personal security measures include myriad policies and regulations for operators, vehicles, and infrastructure that are too numerous and varied to mention in this report. Safety requirements, in general, are much more stringent for com- mercial and public transportation operations than for personal operations, although shared modes are blurring former distinctions in a variety of ways, as described in the next two subsections. (Safety provisions that apply to partnerships between transit and shared mode providers are discussed in the next main section.) Ridehailing The general approach to safety and personal security regulation and over- sight for ridehailing is borrowed from those applied to taxis and other for-hire vehicles and includes requirements for driver screening, vehicle inspections, insurance, and others. As ridehailing gained prominence, much of the controversy over personal security for passengers involved whether the screening of drivers by ridehailing companies was as rigorous as that 48 California Air Resources Board. n.d. ZeroÂEmission Vehicle Program. https://ww2.arb. ca.gov/node/2558/about. 49 Gromis, A. 2019. A Step Forward on Sustainability. Uber. https://medium.com/uber- under-the-hood/a-step-forward-on-sustainability-4e0abce60b6e. 50 Hawkins, A. 2020. Lyft Vows That 100% of Its Vehicles Will Be Electric by 2030. The Verge, June 17. https://www.theverge.com/2020/6/17/21294040/lyft-electric-vehicle-ev- 100-percent-2030. 51 Kranking, C. 2020. California Is Taking Aim at Uber and Lyftâs Outsides Climate ConÂ sequences. https://calmatters.org/environment/2020/03/uber-lyft-ride-hailing-greenhouse-gas- pollution-climate-change-california-law.
TRANSPORTATION SUPPLY AND MANAGEMENT 131 applied to taxi drivers.52 In this context, it should be noted that driving taxis is a high-hazard occupation, with roughly half of taxi driver deaths attributable to passenger assaults, robberies, and other violent acts.53 The taxi industry has described driver screening based on fingerprints run through Federal Bureau of Investigation files as the âgold standardâ for identifying applicants whose past infractions could pose risks for pas- sengers. In contrast, ridehailing companies use third-party screening of state driver records and federal and state criminal records based on names. As it turns out, both methods have strengths and weaknesses.54 More im- portantly, the comparative effects of the different screening approaches on safety outcomes have not been established empirically. Comparing risk between taxis and ridehailing is further complicated by the information about the passenger that a ridehail app provides to drivers; taxi drivers do not have analogous information.55 In ridehailing, identities of both driver and passenger are known, stored electronically, and available to police in criminal investigations. This should deter crimes by both par- ties. In taxi trips, however, passengers are often anonymous to the driver and the taxi driverâs identity, though displayed in the vehicle, is not easily available to the passenger after a ride ends. In addition, the exclusive reli- ance of ridehail companies on electronic payment minimizes the robbery risks that taxi drivers face because of the prevalence of cash transactions. Less contentious than driver screening are issues such as vehicle inspec- tions and insurance requirements, for which most states set minimum stan- dards through state enabling legislation.56 Both taxi and ridehail companies prohibit impairment from drugs and alcohol, but random drug testing to enforce this policy is rare in either case. Regarding the comparative training and professionalism of taxi and ridehail drivers, formal training for taxi drivers is fairly minimal, but most have many more hours of professional driving experience than typical ridehail drivers, who comprise a workforce with continual and rapid turnover. This could make taxi drivers less prone to involvement in crashes than those operating personal vehicles, as has been reported for New York City drivers.57 Complicating the debate about regulations that should apply to either taxis or ridehailing is a lack of 52 Schaller. 2016. 53 Savage, I. 2013. Comparing the Fatality Risks in United States Transportation Across Modes and Over Time. Research in Transportation Economics 43(1):9â22. https://www. sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0739885912002156. 54 NASEM. 2015. 55 NASEM. 2015, pp. 98â104. 56 Washington State Joint Transportation Committee. 2019. 57 Schaller, B. 2006. Taxicab and Livery Crashes in New York City 2004. http://www. schallerconsult.com/taxi/crash06.pdf.
132 THE ROLE OF TRANSIT, SHARED MODES, AND PUBLIC POLICY research on the effect of driver screening and other measures on passenger safety and personal security outcomes.58 After several years of experience with ridehailing, and given the data available in some jurisdictions about assaults, robberies, crashes, and mea- sures of travel by both ridehail vehicles and taxis, it should be possible to compare the overall safety and personal security risks of ridehailing and taxis, at least in the jurisdictions that have such data. To the committeeâs knowledge, however, such research has not been done. Going forward, the most prudent approach appears to be for local and state taxi and ridehail regulators to obtain and analyze information about taxi and ridehail safety outcomes using a safety management system approach.59 Micromobility Safety oversight, regulation, and policy for shared bikes and e-scooters are evolving from approaches put in place for personal cycling and pedestrian safety. Safety measures for personal cycling have long been confounded by limited empirical estimates of the risk of cycling compared with other modes. Data for cycling fatalities are fairly well measured, those for inju- ries less so, and estimates of risk exposure on a distance-traveled basis are compromised by a general lack of data. Based on estimates of person-trips (rather than distance traveled) from a nationwide survey, the aggregate per-trip fatality risk of cycling is roughly double that of traveling by motor vehicle, about 1.5 times that of walking, and many-fold higher than riding in a transit bus.60 The most common cause of death for a cyclist is being struck by a motor vehicle.61 Rates of risk and the cost-effectiveness of safety measures, however, are likely to vary considerably across urban areas of differing traffic densities and designs, and large gaps remain in understanding best practices and the context in which they would be most cost effective. General safety policy guidance for micromobility emerging from European experience62 and provided by the National Association of City 58 NASEM. 2015. 59 Schaller. 2016, p. 12. 60 Beck, L., et al. 2007. Motor Vehicle Crash Injury Rates by Mode of Travel, United States: Using Exposure-Based Methods to Quantify Differences. American Journal of Epidemiology. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/6378823_Motor_Vehicle_Crash_Injury_Rates_by_ Mode_of_Travel_United_States_Using_Exposure-Based_Methods_to_Quantify_Differences. 61 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 2019. Traffic Safety Facts 2017: Bicyclists and Other Cyclists. U.S. Department of Transportation. https://crashstats.nhtsa. dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/812765. 62 International Transport Forum. 2020. Safe Micromobility. https://www.itf-oecd.org/ safe-micromobility.
TRANSPORTATION SUPPLY AND MANAGEMENT 133 Transportation Officials (NACTO)63 parallels that provided for cycling generally: reduce urban motor vehicle speeds, separate traffic, and encourage helmet use. For personal e-vehicles, general guidance also includes limiting speeds to those comparable to cycling and enforcing this with geofencing64 and speed limiters on e-vehicles. NACTO encourages cities to provide bike lanes and restrict sidewalk use by e-vehicles.65 It also recognizes, however, that (1) bike lane specifications may need to change with rising volumes and changing mixes of powered and non-powered small personal and micro- mobility vehicles, (2) street design standards may have to evolve to accom- modate a widening array of e-vehicles with different maximum speeds, and (3) federal e-vehicle design and equipment standards are also evolving in response to the proliferation of e-vehicle types and speed capabilities. Best practices for safety regulation and infrastructure design appropriate for micro mobility are, therefore, in a state of flux. Information about injuries and fatalities is limited by incompleteness in reporting of micromobility crashes and injuries and inconsistencies in how hospitals code e-vehicle inju- ries, though the latter is moving toward standardization.66 As injury data be- come more complete and accurate, with time and increased standardization, pooling of these data with city data on micromobility trips by researchers could provide much better risk estimates to inform vehicle safety standards, safety countermeasures, and improved infrastructure design. A.6. Automation At some point in the future, automated vehicles (AVs) could transform con- sumer mode choices and safety, but when that might occur on a large scale remains highly uncertain. AV systems are categorized in five levels, with Level 1 including automated braking or steering assists that are already available in many new vehicle models and Level 2 including steering and acceleration assists, which are already available in a few models but still re- quire full operator engagement at all times.67 Levels 3 and 4 have increased levels of automation in certain settings while full automation is reached at Level 5. 63 NACTO. 2019. 64 Geofencing is the practice of relying on global positioning technologies to define geo- graphic boundaries in which micromobility devices can operate. 65 NACTO. 2019. 66 Cherry, C., et al. 2019. Understanding Micromobility Safety Behavior and Standard- izing Safety Metrics for Transportation System Integration. https://www.roadsafety.unc.edu/ research/projects/2019r26. 67 SAE International. 2018. Levels of Driving Automation. https://www.sae.org/news/ press- room/2018/12/sae-international-releases-updated-visual-chart-for-its-%E2%80%9Clevels-of- driving-automation%E2%80%9D-standard-for-self-driving-vehicles.
134 THE ROLE OF TRANSIT, SHARED MODES, AND PUBLIC POLICY Technical and regulatory challenges indicate that widespread adoption of AVs operating at Level 5, as opposed to pilot experiments with them, will require many more years of research and development (R&D) and matura- tion of appropriate, publicly acceptable safety oversight of AV operations.68 In the meantime, as many as 90 cities around the world have been allowing AV pilot tests on urban streets, but much remains uncertain about technical feasibility, cost, and how consumers might adopt and use AVs. Simulations by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Energy Initiative team suggest that low-cost, unregulated on-demand shared AV services would increase travel and congestion in large cities, with the severity of the impact depending on the cityâs development patterns and its level of dependence on transit. Modeling by the same team suggests that such services could almost replace transit use in auto-dominated development typical of most U.S. metropolitan areas but would not be able to replace transit in dense or transit-dependent areas, such as in the largest U.S. central cities, with- out causing unacceptable levels of congestion. In contrast, on-demand AVs serving as a first/last mile connection to public transportation could reduce congestion and emissions compared with unregulated introduction of on- demand AV services. A high level of automation in public transportation could be transfor- mative if it leads to sharp reductions in labor expenditures, which repre- sent 60 percent of transit agency operating costs.69 Transit agencies have experimented with Level 1 and 2 driver-assist technologies such as emer- gency braking, collision avoidance warning, and lane-keeping assistance to enhance the safety and efficiency of operations.70 A few cities have been pilot testing experimental, low-speed Level 5 automated shuttles capable of carrying 10 passengers on prescribed pathways in downtown areas or on closed campuses, and many more cities plan to do so. Transit agencies have many questions about the safety of higher levels of automation, and, for now, most transit managers believe that even Level 5 automation would require an operator on board to interact with customers and monitor the operating environment. 68 This statement and paragraph draw heavily from MIT Energy Initiative. 2019. InÂ sights into Future Mobility, Chapter 6. Cambridge, MA. http://energy.mit.edu/research/ mobilityofthefuture. For simulated impacts of AVs in the San Francisco Bay Area, see Rodier, C., et al. 2018. Automated Vehicle Scenarios: Simulations of SystemÂLevel Travel Effects Using AgentÂBased Demand and Supply Models in the San Francisco Bay Area. National Center for Sustainable Transportation, University of California, Davis. https://escholarship. org/uc/item/4dk3n531. 69 APTA. 2019, Figure 31. 70 This paragraph draws heavily from Godavarthy, R. 2019. Transit Automation TechnoloÂ gies: A Review of Transit Agency Perspective. Upper Great Plains Transportation Institute. https://www.ugpti.org/resources/reports/downloads/surlc19-010.pdf.
TRANSPORTATION SUPPLY AND MANAGEMENT 135 Many cities and transit agencies have a keen interest in the potential impacts of AVs on travel, congestion, parking, safety, and costs.71 The many uncertainties about how and when AVs will arrive on a large scale and the impacts they might have indicates that this will remain a topic for R&D and pilot studies for many more years to come. Responsible Entities This section describes a range of implementation strategies to expand multi-modal operations through available policy levers such as permit- ting, regulations, subsidies, service expansion, road and sidewalk space allocation, and safety regulation. The wide range of governments and agencies that have authority to exercise the individual strategies described speaks to the challenges of mobility management at the local and regional scales. Local governments have authority over micromobility permitting and road and sidewalk space allocation. Large cities or counties can set uniform policies covering large segments of the local population and geographic area, but the many local jurisdictions within a region indicate the importance of coordination on policy implementation across jurisdic- tional boundaries. Establishment of consistent policies affecting ridehail and taxi competition would require coordination of states and taxi com- missions, including varied taxi regulators within individual metropolitan areas. Subsidies to ensure equitable micromobility service to people with disabilities and to low-income areas can be provided by individual local jurisdictions and transit agencies, working alone or together, but regional policies would require considerable collaboration across jurisdictional lines. Expansion of fixed-route transit service can be pursued by tran- sit agencies but require funding support from local, state, and federal sources. Policies affecting vehicle emissions are typically set at the federal level, but some states have set supplemental policies encouraging electri- fication of ridehail vehicles. Safety policies for micromobility, ridehailing, and transit are set by all levels of government while local governments have considerable influence over design to enhance the safety of bike lanes. There is much that transit agencies can do on their own to coordi- nate with shared mode providers, as described in Chapter 2; the range and effectiveness of their efforts would clearly be enhanced by supplemental, reinforcing policies by local governments. 71 NACTO. 2016. NACTO Policy Statement on Automated Vehicles. https://nacto.org/ wp- content/uploads/2016/06/NACTO-Policy-Automated-Vehicles-201606.pdf.
136 THE ROLE OF TRANSIT, SHARED MODES, AND PUBLIC POLICY B. DELIVERY OF QUALITY MULTI-MODAL SERVICE TO CUSTOMERS The central idea of this section is that alternatives to SOV trips by shared modes and transit have to be more appealing than they currently are in or- der to shift modal preferences to an appreciable degree. There are multiple angles of attack on this problem: â¢ Improving road traffic flow through operational improvements, pric- ing, and increased pooling of rides will improve bus speed and schedule reliability as will provision of dedicated bus lanes and other strategies in congested city centers; â¢ Improving the frequency of transit service will reduce the transfer delays and annoyance passengers experience in connections to tran- sit from shared modes and providing for and managing curb space for shared modes will improve the quality and safety of access/ egress to these modes; and â¢ Providing for seamless transfers across modes and transit providers can reduce the delay and consumer resistance to making transfers. These strategies, summarized in Table 5-2, are briefly described in the following subsections. B.1. Road Network Reliability Demand Management There are many steps agencies can take to improve road traffic flow (inte- grated arterial route signal timing, high-occupancy vehicle [HOV] or high- occupancy toll lanes, strategies to encourage pooled trips, and transit) and a host of other operational techniques that benefit both automobiles and road-based transit. These strategies are described and analyzed in a volumi- nous literature well beyond the scope of this report.72 In general, demand management techniques, other than those requiring pricing that makes SOV trips more expensive, provide marginal benefits that can be swamped by traffic increases in growing cities and metropolitan areas. Road pricing Because ridehailing increases congestion, at least in the center cities of some metropolitan areas, policies specifically aimed at reducing congestion caused by ridehailing trips have drawn policy makersâ attention. Several cities around the world have imposed fees on ridehail trips, but 72 For an overview of the suite of demand management strategies that regions can apply, see Active Transportation and Demand Management. https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/atdm/index.htm.
TRANSPORTATION SUPPLY AND MANAGEMENT 137 TABLE 5-2 Delivery of Quality Multi-Modal Service Capabilities Implementation Strategies Responsible Entities 1. Road network reliability for personal vehicles and faster bus operations Demand management to reduce congestion (high-occupancy vehicle/ high-occupancy toll lanes, congestion pricing, pricing on- and off-street parking and reducing free employer- provided parking). Center cities, surrounding counties, metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs), and state departments of transportation (depending on route). Encouraging pooling of shared rides through fees or regulation. Local jurisdictions, local taxi authorities. Transit supportive signals, infrastructure, and operations. Transit agencies and local jurisdictions responsible for traffic signal systems and operations. 2. Convenient transit service Funding to enhance service frequency, hours of operation. Transit agencies for delivery of service with funding from local governments, MPOs, states, federal agencies. 3. Seamless transfers Transfer points (carshare parking near stations, shared mobility parking at stations and stops, mobility hubs); curbside management and enforcement. Transit agencies at some stations, otherwise primarily local governments through provision and management of public space for parking and management of curb space to allow access/egress to/from shared mobility providers. Integration of schedules, routes, and fares across transit agencies. States, regional jurisdictions, and transit agency boards. Transit agency partnerships with shared modes. Data sharing. Arrangements between partners and/or requirements by regulating agencies (e.g., city departments of transportation). Access for travelers with disabilities (ADA). Transit agency arrangements with paratransit providers to meet federal requirements. Cash payment by those without bank accounts. Transit agency or local government arrangements with vendors to sell debit cards. Safety. Transit agency compliance with federal, state requirements for driver drug/alcohol; state/ local requirements for driver screening, vehicle inspection.
138 THE ROLE OF TRANSIT, SHARED MODES, AND PUBLIC POLICY these have not usually focused on trips in congested periods or places.73 Ex- ceptions to date in the United States are for ridehail congestion fees imposed in Chicago and New York City. In early 2020, Chicago began charging a $1.75 surcharge on solo ridehail trips ($1.25 for pooled ridehail trips) that begin or end in central Chicago between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m. In 2019, New York City imposed a $2.75 congestion fee on solo for-hire vehicle trips ($0.75 for pooled rides) in or through Manhattan below 96th Street. How- ever, the congestion fee on for-hire vehicles is only the first step toward a proposed congestion fee on all vehicles operating in lower Manhattan. New York City proposes to be the first U.S. jurisdiction to impose congestion fees in a restricted zone within a city center. Revenues will be dedicated to public transportation. The fee was scheduled to be introduced in 2021 but may be delayed by the aftermath of the pandemic and required review by the Federal Highway Administration.74 Road pricing, or congestion pricing, has long been advocated for by economists as the most socially optimal strategy for allocating road capacity.75 Despite the compelling theoretical benefits, practical applica- tions were rare until advances in technology made it possible to impose charges efficiently.76 A few major cities around the world have introduced one version of road pricing, referred to as cordon pricing, which applies to vehicles entering or operating within the most congested parts of the city. Experience in Singapore, which started its program in 1975, as well as more recently in London, Milan, and Stockholm, has reduced conges- tion and vehicle emissions by reducing the number of SOV trips in central areas and shifting demand to transit and carpooling.77,78,79 Cordon pricing may be most promising and politically acceptable in large cities with good transit service to provide alternatives for travelers priced out of SOV travel. 73 Deighton-Smith et al. 2019. 74 Spivack, C. 2020. Congestion Pricing Delayed as New Car Owners Threaten to Slow New York to a Crawl. Curbed New York. https://ny.curbed.com/2020/7/15/21324020/congestion- pricing-delayed-mta-cars-slow-new-york-city. 75 Hau, T. 2005. Economic Fundamentals of Road Pricing: A Diagrammatic Analysis, Part 1âFundamentals. Transportmetrica 1(2):81â117. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/ abs/10.1080/18128600508685644. 76 NASEM. 1994. Curbing Gridlock: Peak Period Fees to Relieve Traffic Congestion, Volume 1, TRB Special Report 242, pp. 32â33. National Academy Press, Washington, DC. https://www.nap.edu/catalog/9212. 77 NASEM. 1994. 78 Croci, E. 2016. Urban Road Pricing: Comparative Study on the Experiences of London, Milan, and Stockholm. Transportation Research Procedia 14, Table 2. https://www. sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S235214651630062X. 79 Jenn, A. 2019b. Lessons Learned for Designing Programs to Charge for Road Use, EmisÂ sions, and Congestion. University of California, Davis, Whitepaper. https://escholarship.org/ uc/item/9n8571hf.
TRANSPORTATION SUPPLY AND MANAGEMENT 139 For multi-lane urban highways it is theoretically possible to toll only some of the lanes and make everyone better off.80 In the United States, the most common version of a congestion fee on highways are the time-based tolls on express highway lanes, often on urban Interstate highways. Ini- tially these tolled lanes were converted from underutilized HOV lanes, but later applications also added additional capacity in the form of new tolled lanes. With rare exceptions, this strategy leaves drivers who do not want to pay a fee with unpriced lanes within the corridor to travel in. By 2017, there were more than 35 express lanes operating around the country.81 Evaluations of early express lanes in Los Angeles and Minneapolis-St. Paul showed increases in personal and transit vehicle speeds and throughput on priced lanes and positive consumer acceptance.82,83 Context and design of express lanes clearly matter, however, as an evaluation of the introduc- tion of express lanes in Atlanta did not find similar benefits, although the program was introduced during a period of considerably dampened travel demand caused by the Great Recession.84 Whatever its form, congestion pricing faces considerable public and political resistance for a variety of reasons. Much of this derives from the unpopularity of charging for the use of a road that was formerly perceived as âfree,â although this argument ignores the significant time penalties and emissions that unpriced roads impose on users and the pub- lic. Stockholm residents opposed congestion pricing during early pilot tests but sub sequently supported it after recognizing its beneficial effects on traffic and emissions.85 Express lanes have spread in the United States as a congestion-relief strategy partly because they do not take away unpriced lanes, which give travelers an unpriced (but slower) option. Concerns about 80 See Hall, J. 2018. Pareto Improvements from Lexus Lanes: The Effects of Pricing Portions of the Lanes of Congested Highways. Journal of Public Economics 158:113â125. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2018.01.003; Hall, J. 2020. Can Tolling Help Everyone? Estimating the Aggregate and Distributional Consequences of Congestion Pricing. Journal of the European Economic Association. https://academic.oup.com/jeea/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/jeea/ jvz082/5721772. 81 Managed Lanes. 2017. https://managedlanes.files.wordpress.com/2017/07/0-ml-database- green-yellow-blue-key-march-2017.pdf. 82 Schroeder, J., et al. 2015. Los Angeles Congestion Reduction Demonstration ExpressLanes Program: National Evaluation Report. U.S. Department of Transportation. https://rosap.ntl. bts.gov/view/dot/3556. 83 Buckeye, K. 2014. Express Lane Performance Evaluation: Interstate 35W in Minnesota. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 2450. https:// journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.3141/2450-05. 84 Zimmerman, C., et al. 2014. Atlanta Congestion Reduction Demonstration: National Evaluation Report. U.S. Department of Transportation. https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/3456. 85 Eliasson, J. 2014. The Stockholm Congestion Charges: An Overview. Center for Trans- port Studies Stockholm, Working Paper 2014:7. https://www.transportportal.se/swopec/ cts2014-7.pdf.
140 THE ROLE OF TRANSIT, SHARED MODES, AND PUBLIC POLICY perceived unfairness also tend to conflate unfairness (as it applies to all users) with inequity (as it applies to those with low incomes).86 Unfairness, in this sense, is the publicâs adverse reaction to having to pay for using a road that is perceived as free. To address equity, most express lanes include provisions to allow for free use of carpools and transit and they typically include expanded transit services in the corridor. Whereas use of express lanes may continue to spread, they only ap- ply to major corridors serving regional traffic and only indirectly affect unpriced travel on congested local streets and roads. In time, road user charges (RUCs) imposed on use of all roads may replace motor fuels taxes as a primary funding source for road transportation because of the grow- ing inadequacy of fuel taxes in keeping up with demand and associated road maintenance costs.87 RUCs could include supplemental charges for driving during congested time periods. More than a dozen states are now engaged in seven RUC pilots to test technologies for feasibility, privacy, and operational efficiency as well as for public acceptance using matching funds authorized by Congress.88 However, implementation of RUCs, if proven and found acceptable, is clearly many years away. As congestion pricing concepts are tested and evolve, cities and regions can also consider park- ing pricing, which has some of the same benefits as road pricing and fewer technological and implementation challenges. Parking pricing Large cities around the nation increasingly realize that more effective parking management is central to encouraging more pool- ing of rides, fewer SOV trips, and improved traffic flow.89 An effective parking management approach would have multiple components. First would be pricing curbside and off-street parking more effectively using new technologies.90,91 Setting prices for parking would encourage some mode 86 Manville, M. 2019. Longer View: The Fairness of Congestion Pricing. Transfers MagaÂ zine. Pacific Southwest Region University Transportation Center. https://transfersmagazine. org/magazine-article/longer-view-the-fairness-of-congestion-pricing. 87 Atkinson, R. 2019. A Policymakerâs Guide to Road User Charges. Information Technol- ogy and Innovation Foundation. https://itif.org/sites/default/files/2019-policymakers-guide- road-user-charges.pdf. 88 Federal Highway Administration. 2019. FHWA Awards More Than $10 Million to Seven States to Test New Ways to Fund Highways. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/pressroom/fhwa1902.cfm. 89 Willson, R. 2016. Parking Management for Smart Growth. Access 49 (Fall). https://www. accessmagazine.org/fall-2016/parking-management-for-smart-growth. 90 Pierce, G., and D. Shoup. 2013. Getting the Prices Right: An Evaluation of Parking by Demand in San Francisco. Journal of the American Planning Association 79(1). https://www. tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01944363.2013.787307. 91 Pierce, G., et al. 2015. Optimizing the Use of Public Garages: Pricing Parking by Demand. Transport Policy 44. https://www.shoupdogg.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2015/04/ OptimizingUseParkingGarages.pdf.
TRANSPORTATION SUPPLY AND MANAGEMENT 141 shift and reduce cruising, which accounts for a surprisingly large share of urban traffic in congested city centers.92 A second component would be en- couraging employers to charge employees for the cost of providing parking, because employer-provided parking is a powerful determinant of SOV use for commute trips and increased parking fees can induce mode shift.93,94 Cities may lack authority to require employers to charge for parking but may be able to tax parking spaces and require employers to offer a âcash outâ option to their employees, which has been shown to reduce SOV trips as well as the number of parking spaces employers have to provide.95,96 Additional parking management strategies that encourage transit use are discussed in the third major section of this chapter. Encourage Pooling of Shared Rides Another way that local jurisdictions could manage increased congestion caused by ridehailing and taxi trips would be to encourage more pool- ing of shared rides, which account for about 20 percent of ridehail trips, as described in Chapter 2. However, recent research has shown that high numbers of users of pooled ridehailing are switching from public transit, thereby adding to congestion.97 It may all be for naught in any event: previous research has illustrated a general rider disinclination to pool ridehail trips98 and recent research reveals a similar disinclination among ridehail drivers to offer pooled rides.99 A stated preference survey of residents of highly urbanized areas in the Netherlands, combined with 92 Hampshire, R., and D. Shoup. 2018. What Share of Traffic Is Cruising for Parking? Journal of Transport Economics and Policy 52(3). https://www.researchgate.net/ publication/325247222_ What_Share_of_Traffic_is_Cruising_for_Parking. 93 Khordaqui, N. 2019. Parking Prices and the Decision to Drive to Work: Evidence from California. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 130:479â495. https://www. sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0965856418306311. 94 Willson, R., and J. Shoup. 1990. Parking Subsidies and Travel Choices: Assessing the Evidence. Transportation 17:141â157. https://www.shoupdogg.com/wp-content/uploads/ sites/10/2016/01/Willson-and-Shoup-1990.pdf. 95 Shoup, D. 1997. Evaluating the Effects of Cashing Out Employer Paid Parking: Eight Case Studies. Transportation Policy 4(4):201â216. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/abs/pii/S0967070X9700019X. 96 Khordaqui. 2019. 97 Schaller, B. 2020. Does Sharing a Ride with Strangers Take Cars Off the Street? Evidence from Uber and Lyft. Presented at the 99th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC. 98 A summary of this research is provided in Schaller. 2020. 99 Morris, E., et al. 2020. Assessing the Experience of Providers and Users of TransportaÂ tion Network Company Ridesharing Services. Final Report. Center for Connected Multimodal Mobility. https://documentcloud.adobe.com/link/track?uri=urn%3Aaaid%3Ascds%3AUS%3 Ac6acf132-15c5-4b0e-b9af-82f8f9098b51.
142 THE ROLE OF TRANSIT, SHARED MODES, AND PUBLIC POLICY modeling of preferences, indicates that time and cost are more important determinants of demand for pooled trips than unwillingness to share rides with strangers,100 though the same may not be true in the United States. It does suggest that additional incentives would be needed to boost the share of pooled rides. Lifting restrictions against pooled rides by taxis would be one op- tion for incentivizing taxi companies to adjust their pricing to encourage more pooling.101 Another would be to incentivize ridehailing companies to encourage pooling more aggressively. Such incentives could perhaps be achieved by providing discounts on fees and taxes for companies that reach certain thresholds for pooled trips; subsidizing pooled trips by low-income riders; giving preferential treatment to pooled, shared rides at airport drop- offs and pick-ups;102 or by increasing fees on ridehail trips with a single passenger.103 Implementation of such fees to date has been limited. As of May 2019, ânine cities and 11 states have some sort of ridehailing fee on transportation network companies (TNCs) like Uber and Lyft.â104 At the time of that report, only New York was offering a discount on fees for pooled trips but has since been joined by Chicago. As discussed in the previ- ous main section, California regulators are considering adding requirements or incentives for ridehailing companies to reduce emissions under the stateâs Clean Miles Standard; formal proposals in 2021 are expected to include measures to include the pooling of trips.105 TransitÂSupportive Signals, Infrastructure, and Operations Many operational and design strategies are specifically designed to increase bus speeds. These include giving priority to transit vehicles in intersection signaling, restrictions on curbside parking during peak periods on major thoroughfares, infrastructure improvements such as bus-only lanes and bus 100 Alonso-Gonzalez, M., et al. 2020. On the Influence of Time and Cost on the WillingÂ ness to Share a Ride. Presented at the 99th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC. 101 Shaheen, S. 2018. Shared Mobility: The Potential of Ridehailing and Pooling. Three Revolutions: Steering Automated, Shared, and Electric Vehicles to a Better Future, edited by D. Sperling, pp. 55â76. 102 Shaheen. 2018, pp. 75â76. 103 Alonso-Gonzalez et al. 2020. 104 Sperling, D., and A. Brown. 2019. How Lyft and Uber Can FixâNot Causeâ Congestion. Transfers Magazine (3). https://transfersmagazine.org/how-lyft-uber-can-fix-congestion. 105 California Air Resources Board. 2020.
TRANSPORTATION SUPPLY AND MANAGEMENT 143 islands to facilitate boarding, and other strategies.106,107,108 Introduction of short tactical bus-only lanes can serve as pilot tests of both benefits and costs.109 These efforts help transit riders but not necessarily other road users. Creating bus-only lanes, for example, can be controversial with auto users and difficult to implement due to fear of increased congestion and political resistance. However, experience with various modestly scaled traf- fic management strategies to reallocate road space from automobiles across multiple cities around the world shows that, under the right circumstances, strategies such as bus lanes can reduce auto traffic and congestion.110 Case studies of these circumstances show that concerns about increased conges- tion were overstated or incorrect because travelers respond to changing conditions and congestion in complex ways, including shifts in trip timing, route, and mode. In any event, transit-supportive strategies such as bus lanes require close cooperation between transit agencies and the jurisdic- tions that control road infrastructure and traffic operations. B.2. Convenient Transit Service A good argument can be made about the importance of service frequency in sustaining and growing transit ridership, particularly in walkable, high- density areas,111 although there are questions about just how large its influence is on peak commute trips.112 In any event, higher frequencies than usual in many transit systems would be important for attracting auto users to replace auto trips with shared modeâtransit trips. Transit headways of 10 minutes are thought to be ideal for supporting a transit-oriented 106 Anderson, P., et al. 2020. Transit Signal Priority: Current State of the Practice. Transit Cooperative Research Program Synthesis 149. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC. https://www.nap.edu/catalog/25816. 107 Ryus, P., et al. 2016. Improving Transportation Network Efficiency Through Implemen- tation of Transit-Supportive Roadway Strategies. TCRP Web Only Document 66. https:// www.nap.edu/catalog/23483. 108 Boyle, D. 2013. Commonsense Approaches for Improving Transit Bus Speeds. Transit Cooperative Research Program Synthesis 110. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC. http://www.trb.org/Publications/Blurbs/170433.aspx. 109 Gahbauer, J., and J. Matute. 2019. Best Practices in Implementing Tactical Transit Lanes. UCLA Institute of Transportation Studies. https://www.its.ucla.edu/publication/best- practices-in-implementing-tactical-transit-lanes. 110 Cairns, S., S. Atkins, and P. Goodwin. 2002. Disappearing Traffic? The Story So Far. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil EngineersâMunicipal Engineer 151(1):13â22. https:// nacto.org/docs/usdg/disappearing_traffic_cairns.pdf. 111 Walker, J. n.d. Frequency Matters. https://humantransit.org/basics/the-transit-ridership- recipe#frequency. 112 Wasserman, J., and B. Taylor. 2020. State of the BART: Analyzing the Factors InfluencÂ ing Bay Area Rapid Transit Ridership Peaking and Their Change Over Time. Working Paper, University of California, Los Angeles.
144 THE ROLE OF TRANSIT, SHARED MODES, AND PUBLIC POLICY lifestyle,113 though such service levels are a rarity in most parts of the United States. Importantly, increased transit service frequencies reduce wait times at transfers, which travelers perceive as twice as burdensome as in-vehicle trip time.114 Even with the benefit of having a trip planner to help travelers time their arrival at transit stops for scheduled service, headways of 30 minutes, and even longer on some routes, are bound to be unappealing to travelers used to the convenience of SOV trips and will thus undermine use of shared modes for first/last mile links to transit. However, increasing peak and off-peak frequencies and operating over longer hours during the day and on weekends drive up operating costs considerably and would require additional funding from local jurisdictions and states. Revenues gained from congestion or parking pricing could be one source of such funding. B.3. Seamless Transfers Transfers Between Shared Modes and Transit Making transfers more convenient would be key to making trips by shared mobility and transit competitive with SOV trips. This includes providing parking for micromobility vehicles near transit, allocating curb space for access/egress to shared modes, and making ticketing and payment simple and convenient. Mobility hubs that bring together shared mode services at transit stations with wayfinding and information about transfers are being experimented with to encourage multi-modal trips.115 In congested areas, transit agencies would require cooperation with local jurisdictions for park- ing and curb space management at transit stations. Curbside management is an emerging area of municipal practice that is not yet well defined or consistently executed, and will likely take time, experimentation, and evalu- ation to mature.116 Relatively little empirical evidence is available about the effectiveness of these strategies in affecting mode shift. 113 Arrington, G., and R. Cervero. 2008. Effects of TOD on Housing, Parking, and Travel. Transit Cooperative Research Program Report 128. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC. https://www.nap.edu/catalog/14179. 114 Wardman, M. 2001. Review of British Evidence on Time and Service Quality Valua- tions. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review 37. https://www. sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1366554500000120. 115 Shared-Use Mobility Center. 2019. Pilot Program to Develop 12 âMobility Hubsâ in Minneapolis, MN. https://learn.sharedusemobilitycenter.org/overview/pilot-program-to- develop-12- mobility-hubs-in-minneapolis-mn-2019. 116 Butrina, P., et al. 2020. Municipal Adaptation to Changing Curbside Demands: Findings from SemiÂStructured Interviews with Ten U.S. Cities. Presented at the 99th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.
TRANSPORTATION SUPPLY AND MANAGEMENT 145 Integration of Schedules, Routes, and Fares Across Transit Agencies As noted in Chapter 3, large metropolitan areas typically have multiple transit agencies. In some cases, these services are naturally complementary, such as commuter rail and bus systems, and often run by independent agencies, which feed commuters to the urban core. These services typically link to a station operated by the main transit agency and have arrange- ments for transfers or payment by a single fare media. However, in other cases, multiple bus transit agencies operate within a region with different schedules, fares, and payment systems, which can lead to delays and extra costs at transfer points that reduce the appeal of using transit. This creates an extra burden for travelers using transit and limits the appeal to those considering switching from personal vehicle use to transit. Some U.S. transit agencies in regions with multiple providers make efforts to coordinate schedules, routes, and transfers, but many regions with multiple transit providers lack cooperative arrangements among them.117 Joint ticketing and payment is atypical. In regions with strong home-rule counties, and because county transit agencies are heavily dependent on local funding, revenue sharing becomes problematic for trips that require trans- fers across jurisdictional boundaries. In some cases, metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) and, in San Francisco, the Metropolitan Transporta- tion Commission (MTC) have played important roles in fostering regional coordination, such as by the MTCâs fostering of a single fare payment system across the metropolitan area for transit, parking, and tolls; encour- aging integrated schedules and fares across regional transit agencies; and encouraging cooperation among independent toll authorities. The importance of information about trips and convenient means of payment for trips discussed in Chapter 4 becomes particularly prominent in this context. A trip planner for regional travel that displays requirements for transfers between transit agencies and multiple payments will have limited appeal to SOV users. Early experimentation with using ridehailing for demand-responsive trips and linking to ridehailing in transit apps in the greater Dallas-Fort Worth region illustrates the institutional challenges to creating apps and services that cross jurisdictional boundaries.118 117 Rivasplata, C., et al. 2012. Transit Coordination in the US: A Survey of Current Practice. Journal of Public Transportation 15(1). https://www.nctr.usf.edu/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/ JPT15.1Rivasplata.pdf. 118 Weinreich, D., and T. Skuzinski. 2020. Transit in Flex: Examining Service Fragmentation of new AppÂbased, OnÂDemand Transit Services. Center for Transportation Equity, Decisions, and Dollars. https://ctedd.uta.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Weinreich_final.pdf.
146 THE ROLE OF TRANSIT, SHARED MODES, AND PUBLIC POLICY Transit Partnerships with Shared Modes Chapter 2 describes a range of partnerships and collaborations between shared mobility providers and transit agencies and the additional federal and state requirements such partnerships must meet. The details provided in that chapter are not repeated here. In general, the experiences of transit agency collaboration or partnering with shared mobility providers include provisions for data sharing (though limited in most cases), subsidies to eligi- ble populations, joint marketing, and links to each otherâs websites through their respective apps. As noted in Chapter 2, key issues are overcoming restrictions on data sharing by private providers; meeting federal ADA and Title VI requirements; and effective working relationships between transit agencies and local and state governments and agencies that control regula- tion of shared modes and funding for transit agencies. The nascent state of these developments and the likelihood of continued evolution as experience matures point to the importance of experimenting through pilot projects, documenting experience, and sharing results with other practitioners. Responsible Entities As demonstrated in previous sections, achieving the policy and operational goals for quality multi-modal service involves an array of entities at the regional scale and beyond. Policy levers include implementation of demand management through road and parking pricing; provision of shared mode parking and access at transit stops and stations; coordinated fares and schedules across transit agencies in the same region; and collaborations, or partnerships, between transit agencies and shared mobility providers. Argu- ably, of these strategies, only the transit agency partnerships with shared mobility providers are largely within the domain of transit agencies. Much of the influence over the introduction of demand-management strategies, curbside management, and integration of schedules, routes, and ticketing across regional transit agencies resides with local jurisdictions and, for some policies, states. The different agencies and jurisdictions at the regional level have a variety of incentives and interests that will not necessarily align with the capabilities outlined in the mobility management framework, particularly those capabili- ties that involve controversy or tradeoffs pitting one set of interests against another or requiring revenue sharing across jurisdictional lines. Local and state policies and practices for managing the shared mobilityâtransit relation- ship, however, are evolving rapidly even as the shared mobility marketplace keeps changing. These are opportunities to use technology and policies to foster improved road system performance, expanded transit service, and seamless transfers across modes, but they will require proactive efforts to
TRANSPORTATION SUPPLY AND MANAGEMENT 147 overcome institutional fragmentation. There are opportunities for MPOs and states to take on stronger leadership roles in this regard. C. TRANSIT-SUPPORTIVE DEVELOPMENT High-volume transit services allowed 19th and early 20th century cities to expand from the high densities and close proximities required for cities based on walking and horse-based transportation. The popularity and spread of personal automobiles and road networks to support them throughout the 20th century allowed suburban areas to expand at much lower development and population densities than their core cities. The re- sulting low population densities typical of U.S. metropolitan areas outside of concentrated areas of development are difficult for public transportation to serve cost effectively. Encouraging denser development along transit lines and stations, particularly for rail-based transit, is one strategy for en- couraging transit and shared mode use and reducing reliance on personal automobiles, although its effects on overall congestion and transit use may be modest given the character of the built environment in most U.S. metropolitan areas.119 This third section of the chapter discusses strategies to enhance transit-oriented development (TOD) and planning and zoning policies affecting parking that support such development (see Table 5-3). C.1. Transit-Supportive Land Use As the backbone of efforts to support alternatives to SOV trips, public transportation works most effectively in areas with population, housing, and employment densities well above those of auto-oriented cities and suburbs. It is also helped by urban block sizes and street layout supportive of walk- ability and mixed uses, among other attributes.120 Conditions supportive of TOD were initially described as three âDsâ: Density (measured by some geographic unit), Diversity (mixture of land uses), and Design (block sizes, street layout). These were later supplemented with Destination accessibility (measures of access to jobs, commerce, and entertainment), and Distance to transit. TOD, based on these five âDs,â has become recognized worldwide as an effective strategy for urban sustainability that blends planning, public participation, design, development, zoning, and public transportation.121 119 NASEM. 2009. Driving and the Built Environment: The Effect of Compact DevelopÂ ment on Motorized Travel, Energy Use, and CO2 Emissions. TRB Special Report 298. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC. http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/sr/sr298.pdf. 120 NASEM. 2009, p. 52. 121 Ibraeva, A., et al. 2020. Transit-Oriented Development: A Review of Research Achieve- ments and Challenges. Transportation Research Part A 132. https://www.sciencedirect.com/ science/article/abs/pii/S0965856419304033.
148 THE ROLE OF TRANSIT, SHARED MODES, AND PUBLIC POLICY In the right settings, with sufficient transit service provision, and with appropriate design elements, TOD residents rely much more heavily on transit and are less likely to own a personal car or multiple cars.122 The effects of TOD on vehicle miles traveled vary across studies,123 presumably because of inconsistencies in the definition or measurement of TOD, ef- forts to foster TOD in settings that cannot support the goals TOD is meant to achieve, and other reasons. Effects of TOD on auto travel can also be confounded by self-selection, that is, the propensity of people who prefer a transit-oriented lifestyle to choose to locate in TODs. After controlling for self-selection, however, residents living in TOD settings near transit sta- tions across eight U.S. metropolitan areas take 35 percent fewer personal motor vehicle trips, and such trips are 39 percent shorter, than residents in non-TOD settings.124 For all of their potential benefits, however, a recent review of efforts to introduce TOD worldwide acknowledges that âthe track record at implementing successful TODs has not been impressive so far,â making it all the more important to understand where and how it can be implemented successfully.125 The state of California has made many commitments to sustainable development, and the state and many of its cities have supportive policies to achieve TOD, but TOD faces more market, regulatory, and cost hurdles 122 Arrington and Cervero. 2008. 123 Ibraeva et al. 2020, pp. 114â116. 124 Park, K., et al. 2018. Travel Behavior in TODs vs Non-TODs: Using Cluster Analysis and Propensity Score Matching. Transportation Research Record 2672(6). https://journals. sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0361198118774159. 125 Knowles, R., et al. 2020. Transportâs Historical, Contemporary and Future Role in Shap- ing Urban Development: Re-evaluating Transit Oriented Development. Cities 99. https://www. sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0264275118316895. TABLE 5-3 Transit-Supportive Development Capabilities Implementation Strategies Responsible Entities 1. Transit-supportive land use Planning and zoning for increased population and employment density and mixed uses around transit stations/transit-oriented development (TOD). Local jurisdictions with control of planning and zoning; MPO funding of TOD-supportive local land use policies. 2. Parking management Maximum limits rather than minimum requirements. Local parking authorities; local jurisdictions with control of zoning; cities and states.
TRANSPORTATION SUPPLY AND MANAGEMENT 149 than greenfield development.126 Initial expectations of future TOD around the new rail systems being built and planned around the country were that it could be market driven if (1) local political resistance to increased develop- ment density and (2) lack of coordination among local and regional land use planning and transportation agencies could be overcome.127 Concerns about gentrification and displacement of lower-income groups emerged later.128 Case studies of cities served by rail transit in the greater Los Angeles region indicate that many of the cities in the region have land use and TOD plans and supportive policies and programs (parking management, bikesharing/ bike lanes, inclusionary zoning, and financial incentives), and collaborate with LA Metro in plans for development around rail stations. Although successful in some LA-area cities, TOD along some rail lines has languished. Having TOD-supportive plans and policies has not met with uniform success. These plans and policies have facilitated TOD development around some rail stations but have not fostered TOD at others. Issues such as housing demand and the general desirability of certain neighborhoods, community resistance to increasing density, and distrust of LA Metro in some neighborhoods have also influenced the success, or lack thereof, of TOD. Outside of highly desir- able areas that are attracting TOD independent of city plans and policies, col- laboration among city planning agencies and transportation agencies appears to play a valuable role. Importantly, the success of TOD in the U.S. context may also depend on effective parking management.129 C.2. Parking Management As described in the previous major section, parking pricing and cashing out employer-provided parking are important components of a comprehensive 126 Barbour, E., et al. 2020. Planning and Policymaking for TransitÂOriented Development, Transit, and Active Transport in California Cities. National Center for Sustainable Transporta- tion, University of California, Davis. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/7j37k8ms. 127 Unless otherwise noted, the rest of this section draws heavily from Banerjee, T., et al. 2018. Institutional Response to Transit Oriented Development in the Los Angeles Metropolitan Area: Understanding Local Differences Through the Prism of Density, Diversity, and Design. METRANS Transportation Center, University of Southern California. https://www.metrans.org/ research/institutional-response-to-transit-oriented-development-in-the-los-angeles-metropolitan- area-understanding-local-differences-through-the-prism-of-density-diversity-and-design. 128 A recent systematic review of studies examining the role of TOD in gentrification finds some evidence that transit and TOD do encourage displacement of poor residents, but also finds counterexamples, and notes the importance of local context and mitigation matters. See Padeiro, M., et al. 2019. Transit-Oriented Development and Gentrification: A Systematic Review. Transport Reviews 39(6):733â754. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/ 01441647.2019.1649316. 129 Chatman, D. 2015. Does Transit-Oriented Development Need the Transit? Access 47 (Fall). https://www.accessmagazine.org/fall-2015/does-transit-oriented-development-need-the- transit.
150 THE ROLE OF TRANSIT, SHARED MODES, AND PUBLIC POLICY parking management approach. The second main component would be to change planning and zoning requirements to reduce the number of required parking spaces in new development and redevelopment. Minimum park- ing requirements can result in oversupply, causing cities to spread out in ways that discourage transit use and walking and encourage SOV trips.130 An alternate approach replaces requirements for minimum parking with maximum parking, which a few cities have begun to do in central business districts.131 Related strategies include curbside parking pricing as described in the preceding major section, which will help avoid spill-over parking out- side of office and commercial areas, and encouraging shared parking across different user groups (employers who need parking during the day with residents who need parking at night). Responsible Entities Retrofitting the auto-centric cities of the United States through TOD would require close cooperation among regional planning agencies, city planning staffs, and public transportation agencies as well as public and political support. Such efforts would include both plans to increase development densities around transit stations and supportive policies, such as parking management, inclusionary zoning, and financial incentives. Parking man- agement is a particularly important supportive policy, but it would need to overcome the extreme fragmentation of parking both across the public and private sectors and within the public sector itself.132 FINDINGS AND OBSERVATIONS This chapter defines major elements of a mobility management framework that would provide A. Multiple travel options for consumers; B. Quality transit service and seamless transfers across modes; and C. Transit-supportive land use development. Exercising these elements can serve the accessibility, efficiency, equity, safety, and sustainability goals identified in the committeeâs Statement of Task. Many cities and transit agencies are addressing individual strategies 130 Shoup, D. 2011. The High Cost of Free Parking. Planners Press. https://www. taylorfrancis. com/books/9781351179782. 131 Nichols, C. 2019. Are Parking Minimums a Thing of the Past? ITE Journal, February. http://www.nxtbook.com/ygsreprints/ITE/G103582_ITE_February2019/index.php#/48. 132 Willson. 2016, p. 24.
TRANSPORTATION SUPPLY AND MANAGEMENT 151 included in this framework. The framework proposed in this report pro- vides a holistic approach in which multiple strategies would reinforce the impact of others in inducing mode shifts away from solo passenger automobile trips. Within each of the mobility management categories, the chapter lays out a variety of policy strategies to achieve these objectives. The findings that follow summarize the strategies and provide observations about appropriate next steps. 5.1. Providing consumers with multiple options for making their trips can enhance mobility, efficiency, equity, and sustainability if guided by public policy. A variety of strategies can be used. 5.1.1. A permitting/regulatory structure for micromobility gives cities a framework within which they can support the supply of micromobility while managing adverse side effects. National organizations such as NACTO have recently provided regulatory guidance to cities. Leader- ship is being exercised by some cities, though not most. Cities can serve equity through the permitting process by requiring service provision in low-income areas, by requiring providers to ensure options for payment by those lacking smartphones and bank accounts, and by evaluating the efficacy of their strategies. 5.1.2. Strategies to encourage supply and competition include easing regulations on taxi entry and pricing to enhance supply and competi- tion. With notable exceptions, cities can establish only modest policy direction over ridehail operations; entry conditions for ridehail com- panies are typically established in state enabling legislation. Such laws, however, can be changed if warranted based on improved information. Cities do have considerable influence over micromobility, and some have made significant effort to exert this influence. The nascent, evolv- ing state of dockless providers and the ongoing shakeout in this sector make it difficult to know what to suggest about enhancing supply other than to take a pilot test approach to enhance mobility options while minimizing adverse side effects. 5.1.3. Subsidies to riders and/or operators can be offered to micro- mobility, microtransit, and ridehail operators and customers to enhance consumer choices and mobility. A variety of subsidies are being offered to docked bikeshare operators, to ridehail and taxi companies in provi- sion of paratransit services and WAVs, and for other public purposes. Unanswered questions are societyâs commitment to provide the funding for such subsidies and who should pay what kinds of taxes, charges, and fees to fund them. Ongoing pilot tests will help answer questions
152 THE ROLE OF TRANSIT, SHARED MODES, AND PUBLIC POLICY about the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of these strategies in meet- ing social and environmental goals. 5.1.4. Expanded shared mode services to lowerÂincome neighborhoods can be accomplished through the kinds of subsidies mentioned above as well as through requirements imposed as a condition of operating. Many cities impose geographic service requirements on taxis, though the quality of such service is often found wanting. Some cities apply equity provisions on micromobility providers during the permitting process, but evaluations of the equity benefits of doing so are rare to date. 5.1.5. Ensuring WAV service has long been a challenge for cities and taxi authorities, but there are promising strategies that can be employed. Cities have tried a variety of strategies over the years to expand availability of WAVs through requirements on, or subsidies to, taxi operators. These efforts have met with limited success. Ridehail companies have resisted being obligated under ADA to provide WAVs, though they have offered them in a few U.S. markets. Most promis- ing for expanding the availability of WAVs are strategies designed to identify and support companies specifically committed to WAV service, to provide subsidies, and by aggregating trips subsidized by different agencies through a centralized dispatching service. 5.1.6. New and expanded transit services will enhance the ability of multi-modal options to compete with SOV trips. Transit services, particularly light rail, have expanded in several cities in recent years, though the expansionsâ impact on SOV trips remains uncertain. Opera tional funding from local jurisdictions and states remains a key concern. 5.1.7. Bus network redesigns to better align routes and frequencies with concentrations of population and employment have become a popular strategy to grow transit ridership, though evidence to date on their effective ness is lacking. Evaluation of the outcomes of these efforts will inform the decisions of other agencies contemplating such redesigns. 5.1.8. Road and sidewalk space allocation for shared modes will expand supply and safety. National guidance on parking for micro mobility has recently been made available to cities by national organizations and researchers. Creating parking spaces or corrals in congested urban centers can be challenging due to limited space and ADA access, but some cities are making progress. Reallocation of road space for transit and micromobility is even more challenging, but some large cities have
TRANSPORTATION SUPPLY AND MANAGEMENT 153 taken steps in this direction. It is important to quantify and understand the benefits and costs of these measures. 5.1.9. Increased emissions from ridehail vehicles are among adverse side effects that public policy can address. California provides the most notable example of addressing ridehail emissions by setting mandates that require ridehail operators to increase the number of ZEVs oper- ated by their contractors over time. Both Uber and Lyft have committed to expanding their fleets of EVs; Lyft has promised to be all electric by 2030. CARB has committed to assisting ridehail drivers with the extra up-front cost of EVs. 5.1.10. Safety and personal security of ridehailing compared to taxis has been a source of controversy that has been difficult to resolve because of the asymmetries between both the business models of ridehail and taxi companies and the regulations that apply to them. With the injury and travel data that should be available after 8 years of ridehail trips, it should be possible to settle this debate empirically. Going forward, safety management system principles and practices could enhance the safety of both types of operations. For micromobility, best practices for safety regulation and infrastructure design are evolving as more is learned about risk and countermeasures. As with pedestrian and cycling safety generally, large data gaps regarding injuries and exposure to risk make it difficult to estimate micromobility risks and provide appropri- ate safety countermeasures and infrastructure designs. Separated bike lanes, helmet use, and reduced motor vehicle speed limits are among proven effective measures. Research is under way to address data gaps and identify additional effective measures. 5.1.11. Automation of shared ride/taxi and transit services (AVs) could transform travel options and consumer choices, but when, whether, and how remain highly uncertain. Simulations suggest that conges- tion and emissions could worsen if the direction of AVs is not steered toward accomplishing social goals. Shared AVs, for example, could provide lower-cost first/last mile connections to transit if appropriately incentivized to do so. Automated systems could enhance the safety and efficiency of transit operations. However, much remains unknown. Pilot testing seems to be the appropriate step for cities and transit agencies to take for the foreseeable future. 5.2. Quality multi-modal services can enhance the ability of more sustain- able modes to compete with private automobiles through a variety of strategies.
154 THE ROLE OF TRANSIT, SHARED MODES, AND PUBLIC POLICY 5.2.1. Improved road network reliability will improve bus speeds and make them more attractive to riders accustomed to the convenience of SOVs. Many options are available to improve traffic operations. Effects of operational improvements to date, however, are mostly marginal and quickly swamped by traffic growth in growing regions. Some cities are addressing congestion through caps on total ridehail and taxi vehicles, but these are indirect ways to deal with congestion. Better would be congestion fees on all drivers or, failing that, congestion fees on taxis and ridehail trips in congested times and places. Congestion pricing has effectively induced modal shifts to transit and reduced congestion in a small number of large cities around the world. There is great interest in how well it will work when introduced in Manhattan. Parking pricing and management can also significantly encourage transit use and higher vehicle occupancy and improve traffic flow. The revenues gained from congestion fees and higher parking costs can be used to offset adverse equity impacts on low-income groups. Strategies to improve network performance can enhance the reliability of bus transit service. Pooling of shared rides could be accomplished by lifting restrictions on taxis to allow pooled rides and by providing incentives to, or fees on, rideshare companies. 5.2.2. Convenient transit service through enhanced service frequency and hours of operation will increase ridership as well as operational costs. States and local jurisdictions would need to provide funding for this purpose. 5.2.3. Seamless transfers across modes may make trips by shared mobility and transit more competitive with SOV trips. Making trans- fers convenient includes providing parking for micromobility vehicles near transit, providing mobility hubs to facilitate transfers, and manag- ing curbspace for access/egress to/from shared modes. 5.2.4. Integration of schedules, routes, and fares across transit agencies in regions with multiple providers would make transit more appealing in those regions, but doing so is complicated by provisions restricting local use of funds that many transit agencies rely on. 5.2.5. Transit agency partnerships with shared mode providers de- scribed in Chapter 2 are beginning to show the benefits of multi- modal trips for a variety of purposes and in a variety of settings. Results of pilot test evaluations funded by the Federal Transit Admin- istration are becoming available and provide insight into the efficacy of these efforts.
TRANSPORTATION SUPPLY AND MANAGEMENT 155 5.3. Transit-supportive development and parking regulation can increase the ridership needed to ensure the cost-effectiveness of transit services. 5.3.1. TransitÂoriented development increases population density around rail stations and transit ridership, and reduces personal auto- motive trips and trip distances in the right settings. These settings can be encouraged by public policies supporting mixed uses, development densities to make transit accessible within easy walking distance by more patrons, and other approaches. Outside of a limited number of neighborhoods with sufficient appeal to allow the market to drive TOD, stimulation of infill and greenfield TOD requires considerable cooperation among planning, zoning, and transit agencies. Though proven effective, TOD is a long-range strategy, as it can take decades from concept to realization in order to significantly alter land use den- sity and mode choice. 5.3.2. Parking management by cities, including setting maximum rather than minimum parking requirements in new and redeveloped proper- ties, is an important and valuable strategy supporting TOD for reduc- ing SOV trips in cities and encouraging mode shifts to transit and shared modes. 5.4. Innovative experimentation is needed to coordinate across the multiple entities responsible for various aspects of mobility management. Within core cities, realizing the capabilities described in the mobility man- agement framework described in Chapters 4 and 5 would require substan- tial collaboration among transit agencies and the city or county agencies responsible for micromobility permitting, taxi industry oversight, road network operations, road and sidewalk space allocation and management, and land use planning and development policies. State agencies would also be important participants in demand management strategies on state roads and in setting vehicle emissions and safety policies. The authorities respon- sible for implementing the above strategies become more numerous when considering mobility management at the regional scale. Fundamental questions for mobility management are (1) where does the leadership come from to overcome institutional barriers, (2) how can cooperation be established and maintained across multiple agencies and governments, and (3) what entity, or entities working together, could act as mobility managers? Transit agencies working in close collaboration with a large central city or urban county could set examples of successes for other jurisdictions to follow. MPOs could play a convening role in establishing a regional vision and an information-sharing role in encouraging mobility
156 THE ROLE OF TRANSIT, SHARED MODES, AND PUBLIC POLICY management at the regional scale. Governors could encourage and incen- tivize jurisdictions and agencies within metropolitan areas to cooperate toward common goals. Given the multiplicity and variety of transportation agencies and government roles across metropolitan areas, broad institu- tional reforms may be needed in local and state highway departments, transit agencies, and MPOs to realize the committeeâs vision of mobility management at the regional scale. The complexity of the issues of regional governance and institutional reform are beyond the scope of this report but are well worth future consideration by others. Even while contemplating policies and strategies to integrate shared mobility into multi-modal mobility management, the shared mobility landscape is shifting and evolving rapidly. The private-sector models for ridehailing companies and micromobility operators are changing, possibly combining, and their economic viability is being tested. The taxi industry is shrinking but may be able to adapt with new technology and regulatory relief. City regulatory approaches to micromobility are expanding and evolving. Transit agencies are experimenting with a variety of partnerships with shared mode providers. A great deal of policy innovation has occurred across the country in each of these categories, often based on judgment, with research to deter mine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of these strategies lag- ging behind. The oft-stated aphorism that âstates are the laboratories of democracyâ might be applied in this context to cities and metropolitan areas. Pilot testing and evaluating the mobility management framework strategies outlined in Chapter 4 and this chapter, including both the ef- fectiveness of individual strategies as well as innovative arrangements for institutional leadership and governance, will provide the evidence needed for jurisdictions to facilitate more efficient, equitable, and sustainable trans- portation. Successes at individual stages could evolve incrementally into broader and more lasting changes and provide examples for other jurisdic- tions to follow. RECOMMENDATIONS The committee recognizes that there are uncertainties going forward for juris dictions and agencies attempting to implement the mobility manage- ment framework identified in this chapter. The committee, however, judges that the following recommendations would be appropriate next steps to take while evaluating and sharing the results of early experience. 5.1 Prioritize transit: Cities, states, and other jurisdictions should priori- tize transit in their transportation networks and evaluate the outcomes of
TRANSPORTATION SUPPLY AND MANAGEMENT 157 prioritization measures to improve the reliability and quality of road-based transit services. 5.2 Price appropriately: Cities and local jurisdictions should institute strate- gies such as dynamic street and garage parking pricing, congestion pricing, and employee cash-out benefits of parking subsidies to better charge for the externalities of all modes. Such policies may improve traffic flow and the performance of the networks that road-based transit systems depend on. 5.3 Promote equity: The public sector should use its regulatory powers over shared mode providers to encourage equitable access to transit and shared services by all travelers within its jurisdiction. 5.4 Partner for paratransit services: Transit agencies should take action under their own authorities to improve mobility options and choices for riders by partnering with ridehailing companies, taxis, and other providers. 5.5 Test and analyze: All entities involved in a partnership with transit or shared modes should pilot test, evaluate, and share best practices. Public- sector research agencies could provide a valuable public service by sup- porting such pilot testing and evaluation as well as conducting research to address other important unanswered questions identified in Chapters 4 and 5. 5.6 Overcome fragmentation and expand geographically: The previous recommendations can be adopted most readily by core cities and transit agencies due to the larger number of involved jurisdictions and agencies across regions. Over time, adoption should expand beyond core cities to their metropolitan areas. Every region will have to work out its own gov- ernance solutions given great disparities across the country in how govern- ments are organized and the authorities they can exercise under prevailing laws and policies. Metropolitan planning organizations can facilitate this process by serving as coordinators and conveners.